IntroductionThere have been numerous attempts to model the governing dynamics between the two ostensibly competing concepts of brilliance and mechanical steadiness. One interesting study is given by the English mathematician G. H. Hardy in his model [1] describing two characteristically different golfers playing a match against each other. The model challenges the apparently accepted doctrine of the 'Brilliant player' having the advantage over the 'Steady player' in a long series of golf matches by holes. Hardy defines 'brilliance' as the capacity to produce ingenious results as well as the capacity to make mistakes, compared to 'steadiness' being completely mechanical producing the same average result all the time. The two players in his model are equal in performance on average, only the brilliant player has a higher standard deviation whereas the consistent player has a standard deviation of 0.Hardy's argument overthrowing the 'commonly accepted doctrine' using his mathematical analysis can be simply encapsulated in the notion that the brilliant player has more room for error. His model categorises stroke quality into three divisions, good shots, ordinary shots, and bad shots, where the player gains a stroke, gains no stroke, and loses one stroke respectively. In a game of golf, a birdie and a bogey means completing the hole one stroke ahead of par and one stroke behind par respectively. Then to win with a birdie at a par 4 hole, you need a good shot in your first 3 shots, whereas to lose with a bogey means a bad shot in one of your first 4 shots. Therefore, with a balance of , where is the probability of producing a good/bad shot, there is scope for loss for the brilliant player. Hardy's model is very simple in that all strokes are independent from each other and the probability of producing a good shot is equal to the probability of producing a bad shot. In this paper, a new approach using an alternative model will be discussed taking into account the dependency of shots, different probabilities for each outcome, and exploring the 'likely flaw in the model'. The 'flaw', as Hardy put it, is 'To play a sub-shot is to give yourself an opportunity of a super-shot … thus the chance of a super-shot is to some extent automatically increased'. Hardy himself questions whether this modification might resolve the paradox of his mathematical analysis which goes against the widely accepted doctrine, yet does not venture into an 'unpleasantly complex' model. Here he is probably keeping true to his belief as expressed in his book A Mathematician's Apology [2], stating 'Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics'.